Perpetual Innovation

Author: BizMan

  • The Future of Computers and Quantum Computing Part Duex

    On April 4, 2019 the DC chapter of the IEEE Computer Society Chapter on Quantum Computing (co-sponsored by Nanotechnology Council Chapter) met to see a presentation by and IBM researcher named Dr. Elena Yndurain on the subject of recent efforts by that company in the realm of quantum computing. I was fortunate enough to be able to attend. I was hoping the presentation would be technical enough to be able to better understand the basics of quantum computing in the sense of a future time-line of when this new technology would be ready for the market place as defined during the course of my own research (Jordan, 2010) which is to say that a working prototype would be ready for full-scale testing. I was disappointed.

    During the set-up for the real purpose of the talk, the presenter stated that the phases of quantum computing could be thought of as being in three phases of increasing complexity: (a) quantum annealing; (b) quantum simulation; and, (c) universal quantum computing. Ultimately, the goal would be (c). But the current state of the technology is (a).

    It was also stated that there were essentially three possible technologies for quantum computing: (a) super conducting loops; (b) trapped ions; and, (c) topological braiding. Both (a) and (c) require cryogenic cooling. The IBM device uses technology (a) that is cooled down to 15 miliK0 (whew!). Technology (b) involves capturing ions in an optical trap using lasers. This technology operates at room temperature but suffers from a signal-to-noise problem that (a) does not. Technology (c) was not discussed.

    The IBM device is a 50-qubit machine. The basic functionality of the device is predicated on Shor’s algorithm (Shor’s algorithm, 2019) and Grover’s search algorithm (Grover’s algorithm, 2019). These mathematical algorithms were developed during the 1990s. They are complex functions so there is a real part and an imaginary part. When queried the presenter stated the gains achieved by this so-called quantum annealing device were from the simplicity of the computation not the speed of the processor. The presenter went on to say that the basic algorithms had been coded in Python (Python (programming language), 2019).

    That the IBM device is based on a 50-qubit processor struck me as being a bit coincidental. Recall from my first post on this subject, there has been an effort (by some unidentified group) to develop a fault-tolerant 50-qubit device since 2000. As of the publication of the paper this had not been achieved (Dyakonov, 2019). When I asked about this, the presenter simply stated that the IBM device was fault-tolerant but declined to offer any specific statistically based response. It should be stated that, during the presentation, Dr. Yndurain remarked that information included was cherry-picked [my words, not hers] to put things in the best light. Why?

    During the presentation, what became clear is that IBM is building an ecosystem around the 50-qubit device. They have rolled this thing about as the “Q” computer. In order to gain access to the device, researcher must “subscribe” to the IBM service or simply “get in the que”. One also has to go through a training/vetting process to be able to develop the particular program the researcher needs to solve a particular problem. Seriously?

    It seems to me this leaves two fundamental questions on the table: (a) will quantum computing be the next great disruptive innovation that supplants silicone dioxide (Schneider, The U.S. National Academies reports on the prospects for quantum computing, 2018) (Schneider & Hassler, When will quantum computing have real commercial value? Nobody really knows, 2019) (Simonite, 2016); (b) What was the point of the presentation?

    My answer to the first question is that I remain skeptical. When queried, the presenter said that the materials used were proprietary and would not be available for use by the audience. I will also say that there was a notable lack of specific information in the presentation materials that could be verified. This suggests the answer to the second question: the point of the presentation was a sales pitch. IBM seems to be building an ecosystem around this 50-qubit device that will solidify market share for what was admittedly the very earliest stage of quantum computing. IBM seems to be continuing in the tradition of Moore’s law being a social imperative not a physics-based phenomenon.

    References

    Dyakonov, M. (2019, March). The case against quantum computing. IEEE Specturm, pp. 24-29.

    Grover’s algorithm. (2019, April 5). Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover%27s_algorithm

    Jordan, E. A. (2010). The semiconductor industry and emerging technologies: A study using a modified Delphi Method. Doctoral Dissertation. AZ: University of Pheonix.

    Python (programming language). (2019, April 7). Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_(programming_language)

    Schneider, D. (2018, Dec 5). The U.S. National Academies reports on the prospects for quantum computing. Retrieved from IEEE Spectrum: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/hardware/the-us-national-academies-reports-on-the-prospects-for-quantum-computing

    Schneider, D., & Hassler, S. (2019, Feb 20). When will quantum computing have real commercial value? Nobody really knows. Retrieved from IEEE Spectrum: https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/when-will-quantum-computing-have-real-commercial-value

    Shor’s algorithm. (2019, April 7). Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm

    Simonite, T. (2016, May 13). Morre’s law is dead. Now what? Retrieved from MIT Technology Review: https://technologyreview.com

  • The Future of Computers and Quantum Computing

    Do you know what Gordon Moore actually said? In 1965 Gordon Moore observed that if you graphed in the increase of transistors on a planar semiconductor device using semi-log paper, it would describe a straight line. This observation ultimately became known as Moore’s law. The “l” is lower case in the academic literature because the law is not some grand organizing principle that explained a series of facts. Rather it was simply an observation. Moore adjusted the pronouncement in 1975 to set the vertical scale at every two years (Simonite, 2016). This so-called law has been the social imperative that has fueled innovation in the semiconductor manufacturing industry for well over 50 years. But it was a social imperative only (Jordan, 2010). It was clear from the beginning that the physics of the material would eventually get in the way of the imperative.

    There is a physical limit to how far you can shrink the size of the individual devices using silicon dioxide, the underlying material of which all our electronics is made. That limit appears to be about 10 nanometers (Jordan, 2010; Simonite, 2016). There are also other more practical reasons why this limit may be unachivable such as heat disapation (Jordan, 2010). Although, given the cell phone industry seems to be driving the technology of late, significant strides have been made in reducing power consumption of these devices. This lower power consumption implies less heat generation. It also seems to imply getting away from a purely Van Neuman computational architecture toward a more parallel approach to code execution.

    This brings us to the fundamental question: what technology is next? When will that technology emerge into the market place? My own research into these questions resulted in some rather interesting answers. One of the more surprising responses was the consensus about what was meant by emerging into the market place. The consensus of the Delphi panel I used in my research was when there was a full scale prototype ready for rigorous testing (Jordan, 2010). One of the most surprising answers addressed the consensus about what the technology would be that replaces silicon dioxide. My research suggests the replacement technology would be biologic in nature, RNA perhaps? The research also suggests this new technology would certainly emerge within the upcoming 30 years (Jordan, 2010). Given the research was conducted nine years ago, this suggests the new technology should be ready for full-scale prototype testing in about 20 years from now. I will address why this time frame is of significance shortly.

    It turns out that this question of using RNA as a computational technology is being actively investigated. It would be difficult to predict to what extent this technology may mature over the next 20 years. But, in its current state of development, the computational speed is measured on the scale of minutes (Berube, 2019, March 7). Ignoring the problem of how one might plug a vat of RNA into a typical Standard Integrated Enclosure (SIE) aboard a US submarine, speeds on that scale are not particularly useful.

    The Holy Grail of the next generation of these technologies is undoubtedly quantum computing (Dyakonov, 2019). There seems to be a lot of energy behind trying to develop this new technology with a reported “…laboratories are spending billions of dollars a year developing quantum computers.” (Dyakonov, 2019, p. 26). But we are left with the same question of when? Dyakonov divides projections into optimistic and “More cautious experts’ prediction” (p. 27). The optimists are saying between five and 10 years. The so-called more cautious prediction is between 20 and 30 years. This more cautious realm fit with my research as well (Jordan, 2010).

    The real problem with achieving a working quantum computer is the shear magnitude of the technical challenges that must be overcome. In a conventional computer, it is the number of states of the underlying transistors that determine the computational ability of the machine. In this case a machine with N transistors will have 2N possible states. In the quantum computer, the device is typically the electron that will have a spin of up or down.  The probability of a particular electron spin being in a particular state varies continuously where the sum of the probability of up and the probability of down equaling 1. The typical term used to describe a quantum device used in this way is the “quantum gates” (Dyakonov, 2019, p. 27) or qubits. How many qubits would it take to make a useful quantum computer? The answer is somewhere between 1,000 and 100,000 (Dyakonov, 2019). This implies that to be able to make useful computations a quantum machine would have to something on the order of 10300 qubits. To illustrate how big a number that is I quote: “it is much, much greater than the number of sub-atomic particles in the observable universe.” (Dyakonov, 2019, p. 27). The problem is that of errors. How would one go about observing 10300 devices and correcting for errors? There was an attempt in the very early years of this century to develop a fault-tolerant quantum machine that used 50 qubits. That attempt has been unsuccessful as of 2019.

    The basic research being done is of considerable value and much is being learned. Will we ever see a full-scale prototype ready for rigorous testing? I am beginning to doubt it. I am of the opinion that a usable quantum computer is not unlike controlled fusion: the ultimate solution, but always about 10 years out. So next year, our quantum computer (and controlled fusion for that matter) will not be nine years out but still another 10 years.

     

    References

    Dyakonov, M. (2019, March). The case against quantum computing. IEEE Specturm, pp. 24-29.

    Jordan, E. A. (2010). The semiconductor industry and emerging technologies: A study using a modified Delphi Method. Doctoral Dissertation. AZ: University of Pheonix.

    Simonite, T. (2016, May 13). Morre’s law is dead. Now what? Retrieved from MIT Technology Review: https://technologyreview.com

     

     

  • The ESOP of Branding: Bumped.com

    This is one of the coolest things ever in branding. BUMPED. And I’ll bet you haven’t bumped into it yet. I assume that the name comes from the idea of going to one of your posts or items-for-sale and typing in “bump”. It may be a couple days without activity, and now it has activity today. This is similar to the idea of going to your web site and changing something on it — any change, even a space, used to work. It’s all a game for search engine optimization (SEO).

    But bumped, the company, is a way for people to sign up for a really cool affinity program for the brands that they really love, and frequent. Every time you buy something at Home Depot (or Starbucks, or….) you get special points. You actually get fractional ownership in the company you frequent. How cool is that?! The more you buy at Home Depot, the more you own of the company’s stock.

    This is a killer way to brand. This has got to be worth more that the usual 2% in credit card points. This has got to be worth more that 5% discount for using your Lowe’s card. This is wonderful. The Bumped Consumer didn’t get any money back. The company actually raised capital (in a fractional stock offering). If/When the Customer sells their shares, the sale would be in the secondary market, to another shareholder. The customer doesn’t realize the profits until they sell the shares.

    Also, the fractional shares can be sold by the customer/shareholder when they want… The expectation, however, is that customers will hold until and unless they become disenchanted with the brand that they bumped and give it the boot. Here’s the YouTube Promo Video;

    The old Hair Club For Men mantra by Sy Sperling: “I’m not just the president of Hair Club for Men, I’m also a client!” I remember a long time ago, I would invite people out to my restaurant, Miami Subs. At the time, it was a pretty cool restaurant. Not too fast, not too slow. It was publicly traded with some 180 locations at its peak… And I owned a few shares. Fortunately, I dumped that dog before it died. The company is private now, named Miami Grill, and expanding slowly (about 31 locations) in the US and internationally. Now I could invite people out to my restaurant, and watch the clock working as we show up at a Starbucks or a Chipotle!.

    Companies have known for decades that getting employees to be part owners of the company helps to align the employees with the best interests of the company. Stock purchase options are common and bonuses are frequently in company stock or stock options. People who rise to C-level (or hired in as a Vice President) are often required to build an ownership stake in the company. This is a wonderful way to overcome the principle-agent problem in ethics (and in economics).

    In many cases, especially if the company gets into trouble, they let the employees take ownership — in part, or in total — of the company, something called an Employee Stock Ownership Program (ESOP).  One example, UPS was owned by employees before going public in 1999 (although the employee-owners retained a significant amount of stock). But getting company stock in the hands of consumers, takes this pride of ownership to a whole new level.

    The company is currently beta testing the APP and the concepts and the transactions. You can sign up on the wait list at: Bumped.com 

    An article in Wired talks about Bumped Raising an additional $11.5m in venture capital (in addition to the 2.5m raised a year earlier).

  • Where Intellectual Property (IP) and Sustainability Meet (GMO and Monsanto)

    For decades Monsanto has enjoyed Intellectual Property (IP) protection on both sides of the plant-agro business. The dominant herbicide in the world, RoundUP, and the Genetically Engineered (GE or GMO) crops that shrug off the active ingredient – glyphosate – in RoundUp.

    Patented Product (herbicide) that relies on Patented Products (GE crops)
    Monsanto started using their glyphosate product in the 1970’s, a product that would become widely marketed under the branded and trademarked name of RoundUP®. Although the patents expired in 1991 and a related patent in 2000, Monsanto is still the major producer of glyphosate produces. Plus, the use of RoundUp has escalated over the years, for several reasons including the unfortunate fact that weeds have started to adapt and have become more tolerant of glyphosate.
    But the major reason for the escalation in the use of RoundUP is that Monsanto genetic engineers have developed crops that are genetically modified to ignore glyphosate. That’s right, the engineers have twiddled with the genes of corn, soy, cotton and other crops that ignore RoundUP, so the herbicide kills only the weeds. In fact, the entire field can be sprayed in order to kill the weeds. These genetically modified plants are patented using “Plant Patents” and marketed under the branding of RoundUP Ready”.
    Sex on the Farm, In the City, and in the GE Labs
    First, a little background on sex, the birds and the trees. A new sexually created plant would be like taking pollen from one flower and introducing that plant to another. If they are close enough cousins, say a red and white rose, they may result in a new “varietal”, say a pink rose. If they are dissimilar then there is little chance that reproduction will happen. Creating a completely new varietal of plant using sexual approaches can be protected by the US Department of Agriculture through the Plant Varietal Protection Office.
    On the other hand, asexual reproduction might be protectable through the US Patent and Trademark Office in the form of a plant patent. The USPTO discusses plant patents and summarizes “Asexually propagated plants are those that are reproduced by means other than from seeds, such as by the rooting of cuttings, by layering, budding, grafting, inarching, etc.” Tubulars (underground kind of plants like potatoes) have special exceptions.
    There are only about 1,250 plant patents issued per year in the USA, just a fraction of a percent of all US Patents. The whole protection of new types of plant and animal concepts are rather specialized and esoteric.
    A quick overview on GMOs (and Organic Foods) can be found at these sites:
    In the USA, more than 90% of all corn, soy, cotton and more are genetically modified. Even though the RoundUP Ready® soybean patent expired in 2015, Monsanto has other intellectual property and legal agreements that tie up the crop. A farmer probably cannot legally save seeds from this year’s crop of RoundUp Ready® soy and plant the seeds next year (without paying a royalty or licensing fee). Plus, as you might expect, there are new patents on RoundUp Ready 2 Yield®, the next generation of patents to protect Monsanto’s monopoly in US food crops. (See this discussion/video at Soybean.com, a Monsanto site.)
    The problem with Genetic Engineering is that we are making DNA changes that may have taken millions of years to occur in nature, if ever. When you change one gene in the DNA, you also need to change “transgenes” for the twiddling of the genes to be successful. The GE corn that is fed to the cows for years, will modify the DNA of the cows. The people who eat the corn, eat the meat, drink the milk and eat the cheese, will also have their DNA impacted. There are massive numbers of plants, animals and insects that interact with every crop. It may be decades before the full effect of a single genetically altered crop can be fully understood as they transition through bio systems.
    Monsanto has been less than Truthful!
    In mid-2018, Monsanto lost a major $289 lawsuit in California where a jury ruled that RoundUp resulted in the likely cause of non-lymphoma cancer to grounds keeper Dewayne “Lee” Johnson. There are many non-lymphoma cancer cases that have been building. This saga will go on, even though Monsanto has sold/merged into the chemical giant Bayer from Germany.
    The prolonged use of RoundUp has resulted in glyphosate showing up in soil, waterways and food supply including vitamins and cereal. The available research showing about a 50-50 split on several factors including the health of soil. (See our discussion of available research by the Soil Association at SustainZine.com on soil and glyphosate impact.)
    But, discovery in the Johnson case demonstrates the efforts by Monsanto to influence research findings and block academic research that was damming to the use of RoundUp. One aspect is that glyphosate, when used as directed, in moderation, seems to be rather safe. But, glyphosate and RoundUp are two different things even though the herbicide product, obviously, contains the active ingredient. Other ingredients in the RoundUp cocktail would help with sticking and penetration. The surfactant(s) help penetrate the leaves/cells of a plant (or an animal, for that matter). Discovery also showed a very cozy relationship between Monsanto executives and the FDA.
    Conclusions
    When you see research that says that organic is much better than GMO, and research that says GMO is much better than organic, you have to ask yourself who is likely more truthful. The independent research, or the research commissioned by an Agro Giant? Given that the pro-GMO research is tainted, you should go with research that is totally independent and ignore the noise on the other side.  
    We love innovation, intellectual property protection, and economic development… Monsanto is where intellectual property protection and sustainability meet: feeding a hungry world while protecting the innovators who work to do so…
    You have to wonder, however, if Monsanto, like the tobacco industry before it, will end up on the wrong side of history on GMO-RoundUp?
    As inventors and innovators, “may we collectively make the world a better place. And, may we have the wisdom to use a wealth of new technologies wisely.” (Hall & Hinkelman, 2018, p. 8)
    …
    For an overview of Intellectual Property and Patents check out Hall & Hinkelman’s  Patent Primer 4.0 a booklet in the Perpetual Innovation™ series at LuLu Press or Amazon.
    References
    Hall, E. B. & Hinkelman, R. M. (2018). Perpetual Innovation™: A guide to strategic planning, patent commercialization and enduring competitive advantage, Version 4.0. Morrisville, NC: LuLu Press. ISBN: 978-1-387-31010-4 Retrieved from: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/SBPlan
    Hall, E. B. & Hinkelman, R. M. (2017). Perpetual Innovation™: Patent primer 4.0: Patents, the great equalizer of our time! An overview of intellectual property for inventors and entrepreneurs. Morrisville, NC: LuLu Press. ISBN: 978-1-387-07026-8 Retrieved from: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/SBPlan  [Amazon v4.0e  ASIN: B074JJCDHG Retrieved from: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B074JJCDHG ]  

  • IP for Corn that fertilizes itself with Nitrogen Fixing bacteria.

    From SustainZine: Corn that fertilizes itself with Nitrogen Fixing bacteria. How best to propagate the innovation & commercialize it. #SustainZine #RegenerativeFarming
    http://sustainzine.com/2018/08/corn-that-fertilizes-itself-with.html
    *** Blog Article ***
    This is a cool article in Science by Ed Young about a giant corn varietal in Sierra Mixe Mexico that grows in very poor soil, but actually fertilizes itself. There’s a bacteria that grows around the roots that absorbs nitrogen from the air and provides it to the corn. The team of researchers led by Alan Bennett from UC Davis referred to this a “Nitrogen Fixing” which works just like roots absorbing nitrogen from the soil.
    In this case, the soil is very poor quality, so the corn actually gathers nitrogen from the air (78% nitrogen for dry air).
    One major disadvantage of this corn is that it takes 8 months to mature.
    The benefits are many. In a linear world of farming, row crops are raise on big farms and the crop shipped off to marked (cities), which deplete the soil. So fertilizers are needed to replenish the soil to grow the next crop. The fertilizers (mainly phosphate and nitrogen) end up running off into the water ways and result in massive ecological damage such as algae blooms and red tide.
    Because fertilizers are expensive to buy, and expensive to apply, farmers continue to do a better job with fertilizers. (Other factors like urbanization, turf grass and golf course are taking over lead positions in pollution generation.)   However, linear systems in farming are non-sustainable, broken systems, compared to Regenerative Farming approaches that use non-til and corp rotations to restore the quality of the soil.
    To commercialize this “nitrogen fixing” cereal crop requires some improvements, new varietals (sexual reproduction) or genetically engineered (GMO crops). The intellectual Property (IP) of such crops will be important. Profits and the capitalist system at work, availability to the people and countries that need it, and the property rights protections that make IP work are just a few important ingredients in the dissemination of new technology — in this case, new crops.